“I just cracked open Julie Orringer’s latest book this morning; a very wise and literary friend gave me a galley of it and promised I would love it. It’s gorgeous so far, master-craftsman-next-level kind of writing.”

“There’s a touching paradox in the first chapter of Jami Attenberg’s caustic, entertaining and bighearted new novel, The Middlesteins….The burning question, which Attenberg explores with patience and sensitivity, is why Edie has embarked on her self-destructive path. The answers themselves aren’t surprising: Edie married too early, felt ambivalent about parenthood, became disillusioned with her career. What’s remarkable is the unfailing emotional accuracy and specificity with which Attenberg renders Edie’s despair….largely brilliant.”

Share this:

Like this:

Related

I’m not surprised. There are so many ways to hype a book, worthy or not. No conspiracy is required, either. I suppose if someone write a kind review for your book, it would be easier to write a positive review about theirs. Thanks for watching for these…coincidences?

Thanks, Thomas. A basic principle of newspaper ethics says: Journalists shouldn’t just be above conflicts of interest — they should be above the *appearance* of conflicts. So it’s disappointing that the New York Times let Orringer review this book. Many other critics could have reviewed Attenberg’s book as well as or better.